EU ready to end drug prohibition

We have already seen that there is a significant section of Irish society incapable of dealing with alcohol maturely despite it's long legal history. Perhaps we, as a society, should master one drug first. When we have responsible partaking of one, we may be able to manage responsible partaking in another.

Dravokivich wrote: »

You got a pipe big enough for that?

Just give me a place to stand and a fulcrum to place my pipe on....

liah wrote: »

I already stated it wasn't going to be instant. Things are always rocky at the beginning while things get fine-tuned and sorted out-- it's why I ballparked it at roughly 20 years or so. Currently legalization in the EU is still in its infancy with the Netherlands and Portugal, and, no offense meant to either-- neither of them are exactly the big players in the EU, and in the Netherlands it has always been restricted and not fully legalized. I don't know the actual status in Portugal.

People expecting instant change are very short-sighted; in the case of drugs things tend to get worse before they get better, but they do certainly get better. Again and as always, alcohol prohibition is a perfect example.

While it was never fully legalized, they are getting less lax in what they allow.

Portugal decriminalised possession of drugs. Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

I wouldn't necessary disagree with you on time frame and stuff, just don't think this article is highlighting a catalyst in any form. The campaign to legalise many drugs has been ongoing for many years now, and all this article highlights is that no EU law regarding drugs is in the making, and that each country is allowed to act as a free agent. It's got nothing to do with the EU being ready to end drug prohibition, because they are not the ones who made the prohibition of have the power to end it.

All this was was hearing. As the article says, the EU has "no competence to take any initiatives for opening the debate on drug reform". The EU as a collective has no opinion in this matter.

prinz wrote: »

We have already seen that there is a significant section of Irish society incapable of dealing with alcohol maturely despite it's long legal history. Perhaps we, as a society, should master one drug first. When we have responsible partaking of one, we may be able to manage responsible partaking in another.

Well, that will never happen. And that line of reasoning is questionable. So many humans have died in auto mobile accidents on roads, but that didn't stop us taking to the skies.

Orando Broom

liah wrote: »

About time this idiotic prohibition starts to come apart. This is great news, or at least, has the potential to be.

Pot, smack and Coke, pilla and all that sh**e are for eejits.

Porther is a real man's drug.

I'd jail every C*** for using those pansy drugs.

prinz wrote: »

We have already seen that there is a significant section of Irish society incapable of dealing with alcohol maturely despite it's long legal history. Perhaps we, as a society, should master one drug first. When we have responsible partaking of one, we may be able to manage responsible partaking in another.

I would also argue that that in and of itself is a side effect of nanny-stateism.

Look at countries with low to no legal drinking age compared to ones that are higher. Inevitably, the countries with low to no legal drinking age have more exposure and the binge or otherwise unhealthy drinking just isn't as big as a problem as countries with higher ages and little exposure until that age. It's very much a noticeable trend.

It's the simple taboo factor. Take the taboo out of the equation and the appeal is diminished considerably. Add education and exposure into the equation and people are doing their drugs of choice responsibly, as the example is set for them.

If something is banned then there is no standard or example set. That leads to unhealthy behaviour and drug use and solves absolutely nothing, because people can still, and always will be able to get the drugs. Might as well pre-empt it and make it safe.

I just don't understand how this simple fact still eludes people. Banning solves nothing, never has, especially when it's something people really want. It just creates bigger, dirtier problems that can only be brushed under the carpet for so long.

Procasinator wrote: »

Well, that will never happen. And that line of reasoning is questionable. So many humans have died in auto mobile accidents on roads, but that didn't stop us taking to the skies.

We have pilots for that.

Oh_Noes

prinz wrote: »

We have already seen that there is a significant section of Irish society incapable of dealing with alcohol maturely despite it's long legal history. Perhaps we, as a society, should master one drug first. When we have responsible partaking of one, we may be able to manage responsible partaking in another.

This works on the assumption that all "drugs" have the same effect. I agree that legalizing marijuana would most likely cause people to get themselves into problems much like alcohol, but I certainly can't imagine 10 lads and their girlfriends out in the middle of main street on a Saturday night night killing each other and pissing/puking everywhere as a result of smoking cannabis.

Ecstasy/cocaine and friends are a different kettle of fish in my opinion and I wouldn't like to see these become more commonly used. That being said, using the law to control them obviously doesn't work.

Any discussion of this issue is progress IMO. Talking about it legitimizes the debate and as far as I can see, a huge chunk of society disagree with the legal status of cannabis. The issue isn't progressing at a fast pace by any means, but it is coming up more and more, which can only be a good thing.

prinz wrote: »

We have pilots for that.

Sorry for continuing the bad analogy:

A lot of people didn't think like what the Wright brothers were trying to do. And even with all the advances with flying and the auto mobile industry, people die each year on our roads.

liah wrote: »

I would also argue that that in and of itself is a side effect of nanny-stateism.

Look at countries with low to no legal drinking age compared to ones that are higher. Inevitably, the countries with low to no legal drinking age have more exposure and the binge or otherwise unhealthy drinking just isn't as big as a problem as countries with higher ages and little exposure until that age. It's very much a noticeable trend..

It's not the fault of the State. It's the fault of parents being unwilling, incapable and ignorant of (a) setting a good example and (b) teaching kids about responsible drinking. It's a societal problem. Being in Germany you'll find that the historically low drinking rules are actually being raised because society is changing. Not because the state is 'nannying' but because kids were no longer getting educated at home, as society changes. The same problem is occurring in France where teenage binge drinking, a relatively previously unknown phenomenon, is becoming commonplace. It seems more parents are abdicating responsibility for their offspring and in such circumstances the State must step in.

In this country it is the parents perogative to share alcohol with their kids at home and supervised. This system, properly implemented allowed other countries to enjoy relatively low drinking ages because even at those relatively young ages the youths were mature about drinking. Lowering the drinking age here would be a disaster because not enough parents will properly engage with their kids on the matter. The same problem spans a few issues alcohol, general social responsibility and sex ed being the most obvious.

What you seem to suggest is to lower the drinking age thereby encouraging a healthy attitude towards drink. That's IMO putting the cart before the horse. Get a healthy attitude and then lower the drinking age if needs be.

Wolf Club

It's hard to see the legalisation of any drugs in Ireland for quite a long time. The fact of the matter is, the conservative, religious "moral majority" types are, well, in the majority and are much better at making their voices heard through use of sensationalist headline grabbing and religious rhetoric than most in favour of legalising drugs. A good example would be that disgruntled, Nancy Reagan type lunatic from Roscommon. As long as people like that are around (and I can only imagine there are loads), it's hard to see drug prohibition coming to an end.

Mr E

Why-is-the-topic-hyphenated-and-IN-CAPS?
Maybe-you-should-spend-your-money-on-a-working-keyboard-instead-of-drugs.

Elevator

Mr E wrote: »

Why-is-the-topic-hyphenated-and-IN-CAPS?
Maybe-you-should-spend-your-money-on-a-working-keyboard-instead-of-drugs.

copy and pasted from the link

gee, thanks for your insight there mr e

prinz wrote: »

It's not the fault of the State. It's the fault of parents being unwilling, incapable and ignorant of (a) setting a good example and (b) teaching kids about responsible drinking. It's a societal problem. Being in Germany you'll find that the historically low drinking rules are actually being raised because society is changing. Not because the state is 'nannying' but because kids were no longer getting educated at home, as society changes. The same problem is occurring in France where teenage binge drinking, a relatively previously unknown phenomenon, is becoming commonplace. It seems more parents are abdicating responsibility for their offspring and in such circumstances the State must step in.

In this country it is the parents perogative to share alcohol with their kids at home and supervised. This system, properly implemented allowed other countries to enjoy relatively low drinking ages because even at those relatively young ages the youths were mature about drinking. Lowering the drinking age here would be a disaster because not enough parents will properly engage with their kids on the matter. The same problem spans a few issues alcohol, general social responsibility and sex ed being the most obvious.

What you seem to suggest is to lower the drinking age thereby encouraging a healthy attitude towards drink. That's IMO putting the cart before the horse. Get a healthy attitude and then lower the drinking age if needs be.

I'd argue that you could look at the reason for parents not properly educating their children on it is because of people not being able to drink until the age at which parents kinda stop parenting. Which leads to the age going higher and higher, which accomplishes nothing.

Chicken and egg situation, but raising the age is only going to make things worse. And has been proven to do so.

thebigbiffo

first i was like

:D:D

then i was like

:(:(

now i'm like :mad::mad::mad:

this is really a non-story. a few potheads lobbied together to get a hearing on drug prohibition - the EU is a massive democracy and that's not hard to do. the outcome was 'yeah, we're hearing ya. but take it to individual states - we dont do law'.

i'm very much anti-prohibition and i do see changes coming down the road but the immediate campaign should focus on medical MJ. if we get that it may very well open the floodgates so to speak. it's about normalising the drug in the mind of the majority of our citizens and with that comes education about it and with that, hopefully, the 'ahhh shure it's harmless, johnny down the road swears by it for his bad back' senario where people just dont give a **** anymore. that's our best chance - look at California.

liah wrote: »

I'd argue that you could look at the reason for parents not properly educating their children on it is because of people not being able to drink until the age at which parents kinda stop parenting. Which leads to the age going higher and higher, which accomplishes nothing..

You can drink alcohol with your parents in private residences and under proper supervision under 18. The problem continues though when the parents then drink irresonsibly in front of/around their kids.

liah wrote: »

Look at countries with low to no legal drinking age compared to ones that are higher. Inevitably, the countries with low to no legal drinking age have more exposure and the binge or otherwise unhealthy drinking just isn't as big as a problem as countries with higher ages and little exposure until that age. It's very much a noticeable trend.

It only a trend though. The US has a higher legal drinking age on average yet Ireland would have a higher alcohol consumption per capita.

Some countries have an almost outright ban (Muslim), and while it would of course be hard to measure illegal consumption, it safe to assume it less than that of Ireland for instance.

What I mean to say is culture comes into this too and Ireland has a big drinking culture. It's widely accepted to drink in this Country, I don't think the "taboo" you talk about is that sizeable.

While I personally think the Dutch model might suit Ireland - allowed to drink at 16, but not hard liquor until 18 - I don't think Ireland will ever have what is considered a low consumption of alcohol, at least not just from fiddling of +/- the legal age to drink.

prinz wrote: »

You can drink alcohol with your parents in private residences and under proper supervision.

Depending on the country you're from. Keep in mind I'm not Irish and I don't know the ins and outs of Irish law and am more speaking in a broad sense than any sort of specific one.

Unless you mean regardless of legality. In which case I would agree, but would you not agree that a higher age is a deterrent for parents to bother to teach their kids about these things because "ah sure, we won't have to worry about it til he's sixteen and sure he can learn from his friends then"?

I completely agree that it's as much the parent's fault as anything else, but the fact is the state (again, speaking in a broad sense and about nowhere specific) keeping the ages so high is not helping and is more counter-productive than anything.

liah wrote: »

Unless you mean regardless of legality. In which case I would agree, but would you not agree that a higher age is a deterrent for parents to bother to teach their kids about these things because "ah sure, we won't have to worry about it til he's sixteen and sure he can learn from his friends then"?

The drinking age is going to have no real effect on the cop on and common sense of parents. Parents should be taking a step back and relying on 'friends' and TV and etc to teach their kids. That's where the real problem is.

liah wrote: »

I completely agree that it's as much the parent's fault as anything else, but the fact is the state keeping the ages so high is not helping and is more counter-productive than anything.

No. States have had it low and it worked. Then something changed and they need to raise it again. Keeping it low only works as long as kids are getting properly educated, and like I pointed out even in countries where drinking ages were low, something has changed, and attitudes towards alchohol have changed dramatically, while the drinking age has remained constant.

Procasinator wrote: »

It only a trend though. The US has a higher legal drinking age on average yet Ireland would have a higher alcohol consumption per capita.

Some countries have an almost outright ban (Muslim), and while it would of course be hard to measure illegal consumption, it safe to assume it less than that of Ireland for instance.

What I mean to say is culture comes into this too and Ireland has a big drinking culture. It's widely accepted to drink in this Country, I don't think the "taboo" you talk about is that sizeable.

While I personally think the Dutch model might suit Ireland - allowed to drink at 16, but not hard liquor until 18 - I don't think Ireland will ever have what is considered a low consumption of alcohol, at least not just from fiddling of +/- the legal age to drink.

Good point. Again, I'm not Irish, or even European, so I'm not arguing at all from an Irish standpoint, just in a very broad sense.

Ireland certainly does have problems with its relationship with alcohol and I'd be very curious to know where it stems from. Unfortunately it's not something I can look into or even bring up as nine times out of ten I'll get slagged out of it for being "anti-Ireland."

I try to avoid stating any opinion on Irish affairs on boards. Even if the majority of Irish people in the discussion were saying the same things I would, I'd be run out of it for being anti-Irish. So.. just assume I'm not only talking about just Ireland when I'm talking about stuff like this.

Orando Broom

Jagle wrote: »

i wanna be able to legally smoke a planet that has a zero record for killing people

Saturn.

It wounded 12 but no deaths. Enjoy your phat planet.

Standman

There aren't enough powerful lobby groups to affect drug policy reform here. There's still a taboo to taking drugs and while many people support policy reform they keep their opinions in the safety of their living rooms and internet forums. This isn't going to happen on it's own people need to get active.

liah wrote: »

Good point. Again, I'm not Irish, or even European, so I'm not arguing at all from an Irish standpoint, just in a very broad sense.

Ireland certainly does have problems with its relationship with alcohol and I'd be very curious to know where it stems from. Unfortunately it's not something I can look into or even bring up as nine times out of ten I'll get slagged out of it for being "anti-Ireland."

I try to avoid stating any opinion on Irish affairs on boards. Even if the majority of Irish people in the discussion were saying the same things I would, I'd be run out of it for being anti-Irish. So.. just assume I'm not only talking about just Ireland when I'm talking about stuff like this.

Just develop thicker skin. If that is all someone can do to refute a point, you are winning the argument.

I have an Irish passport and have lived here a good while now, but I was born and lived more years in elsewhere, so I can see where you are coming from.

mikom

Jagle wrote: »

i wanna be able to legally smoke a planet

I smoked a fat one with Galactus once.

liah wrote: »

Ireland certainly does have problems with its relationship with alcohol and I'd be very curious to know where it stems from...

Pub culture. The pub as a place to drink, rather than primarily as a place to eat and possibly have a drink on the side, or as a place to meet people and move on.

liah wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not something I can look into or even bring up as nine
times out of ten I'll get slagged out of it for being "anti-Ireland.".

The rest of us just get slagged off for being west brits or some such nonsense, or if everywhere else is so great why don't you leave....etc. Along with a problematic relationship with alcohol, we seem to have a problematice relationship with introspection. In fact the two could easily be strongly linked on the level of the individual too.

thebigbiffo

i dont like this idea of slagging off our drinking culture - the germans drink more, the polish drink more, we're only 4-5th on the last european table i saw.

i think the irish are starting to get too self concerned. we have a pub culture, we like the 'craic' (a term invented to try and capture our unique sense of humour and penchant for a good time) and we're famous for these things. why should we change? what are these problems with drink that are ruining the country? i dont see them - life is going on around me as it has in this country for years. alcoholics are alcoholics - they'll always be there, lets not let that fact affect the rest of us who want to get blathered on occasion without being branded a shame on the country.